Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.
The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn't carried out properly. Should or shouldn't hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?
Hydro is the 70s idea of green.
See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?
If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.
Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It's all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.
Nukes? I'm sorry, but what?
Nuclear power as seen by someone who has no idea what nuclear power is.
I know what nuclear power is, I'm just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.
Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.
Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn't know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like "nukes" to describe nuclear power.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of people that were displaced. And the alternative to nukes is obviously not fossil fuels but renewable energy.
The Three Gorges dam displaced an approximate 1.3 million people, is of questionable structural integrity because of rushed construction, has had a huge impact on its immediate environment and in the event of a breach endangers 400 million people. While that monstrosity is an outlier, in most instances the construction of a dam will displace a lot of people and carries a sizable risk of breach if the construction isn't carried out properly. Should or shouldn't hydroelectric be considered environmentally friendly?
Hydro is the 70s idea of green.
See how people usually only talk about wind/solar rather than suggest building more dams?
If anything places are starting to dismantle dams to restore ecosystems.
Wind and solar have relatively short material lifespans that are expensive or impossible to recycle. It's all a double edged sword. There is no single solution that will work everywhere on this planet.
Nukes? I'm sorry, but what?
Nuclear power as seen by someone who has no idea what nuclear power is.
I know what nuclear power is, I'm just confused as to why someone would use the word nukes, which is clearly associated with the ammunitions.
Nuclear power has its place in the energy generation system alongside natural energy sources.
Sorry if I was vague, I meant the person you were replying to doesn't know what nuclear power is, which is why they use a fear mongering term like "nukes" to describe nuclear power.
Ah, gotcha!